Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:03 AM - Re: Commercial use? (Eric Wobschall)
2. 05:36 AM - Re: Commercial use? (A. Dennis Savarese)
3. 05:49 AM - Re: Commercial use? (A. Dennis Savarese)
4. 06:47 AM - Re: Commercial Use (Barry Hancock)
5. 08:37 AM - Re: Commercial use? (Roger Kemp M.D.)
6. 09:16 AM - Re: Commercial use? (Walter Lannon)
7. 10:39 AM - Re: Commercial use? (bill wade)
8. 11:23 AM - Re: Commercial use? (Kregg Victory)
9. 12:00 PM - Re: Commercial use? (A. Dennis Savarese)
10. 12:00 PM - Re: Commercial use? (William Halverson)
11. 12:27 PM - Re: Commercial use? (Tom Johnson)
12. 12:29 PM - Re: Commercial use? (Tom Johnson)
13. 12:31 PM - FW: Aircombat CJ-6A's GRRRRR (Tom Elliott)
14. 12:52 PM - Re: Re: Commercial use? (Tom Elliott)
15. 08:18 PM - Re: Re: Commercial use? (Roger Kemp M.D.)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Commercial use? |
Once again, Dave, you seem to be mistaking my remark about Skip Holm
as suggestion that certain kinds of operations are generally a good
idea. It was in response to a list user pointing out that the outfit
in question had among it ranks a pilot who has been previously
criticized on this forum. Since John pointed out the participation of
that pilot with this group to bolster an argument, I though it
intellectually honest to point out that another pilot with an
impeccable reputation was also associated with the same group. I made
what was intended as a rather innocuous observation to what I know to
be a thoughtful forum.
I appreciate your passion, and enjoy the most of the arguments we have
on here. However, I don't expect to be excoriated for the mere mention
of a man's name. You can expect some mild sarcasm after a slap like
that. However, I regret taking you first remark personally, and I
didn't mean to slump into an uncivilized exchange. Apologies for that.
On Mar 7, 2010, at 1:33 AM, KingCJ6@aol.com wrote:
> I'm sorry, I'll attempt to =93concentrate on the thread=94 and dumb
this
> down for you. In the FAA=92s eye=92s, it doesn't matter if Skip Holm,
> Chuck Yeager or Joe Pilot is operating an Experimental aircraft for
> Commercial purposes and has an incident. They will find reasons why
> we should not fly rather than why we should continue to fly. The
> notorious T-34 Air Combat operations were all certified for
> Commercial operations in the Normal category ' the aftermath is well
> known and continues to haunt our community. Perhaps you are
> expecting =93change you can count on=94?
>
> Dave
>
> In a message dated 3/6/2010 9:09:38 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
eric@buffaloskyline.com
> writes:
> Try to concentrate on the thread if you can. The sentence I was
> responding to mentioned that one of the pilots on the website was
> the one who buzzed the SMP. I'm not otherwise familiar with him, but
> if Skip Holm is associated with something, you might check your
> facts before criticizing. Not saying he can't be wrong, just that he
> has a lot of credibility.
>
>
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 11:52 PM, KingCJ6@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Doesn't matter if even God was PIC, the Fed's will quickly shut
>> down our Experimental a**es if these guys have an incident ala the
>> T-34's.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> In a message dated 3/6/2010 8:43:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
eric@buffaloskyline.com
>> writes:
>> On the other hand, Skip Holm.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2010, at 8:23 PM, John Fischer wrote:
>>
>>> Patrick,
>>>
>>> I belive if you check the company out further, you will find the
>>> owner to be Dave Riggs.
>>> Many of you will recall Dave Riggs as the pilot who had his
>>> licence revoked for buzzing the Santa Monica Pier.
>>>
>>> http://www.mach1aviation.com/bio-dr.htm
>>>
>>> Laterrrrr
>>> John Fischer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 04:32 PM 3/6/2010, you wrote:
>>>> Gents,
>>>>
>>>> I received this link to incredible-adventures.com:
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/pdf/yak.pdf
>>>> from Gary Gabbard, He expressed a concern and I agree. This
>>>> site advertised a commercial air -combat operation. While I
>>>> admire their enterprise, we know where this kind of activity got
>>>> the T-34 community.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I am concerned that someone will get hurt with
>>>> aggressive 'non-recreational' use of our fine aircraft and bring
>>>> FAA action against us all. I am not sure who is planning these
>>>> activities, but someone should inform this entity that commercial
>>>> air combat ops for hire is not an approved use of the aircraft.
>>>> Even claiming that it is a filming activity is not credible when
>>>> one is essentially selling air-combat hops and filming them.
>>>>
>>>> This kind of flying belongs in the proficiency realm, not the
>>>> commercial. All of the above is simply my opinion. Am I wrong
>>>> here?
>>>>
>>>> Patrick Scofield
>>>> CJ-6P Alien Invasion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Yak-List
>> ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
>>
>
>
> ========================
===========
>
>
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Yak-List
> ========================
===========
> ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> ========================
===========
>
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ========================
===========
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Commercial use? |
Walt,
>From my discussions with the FAA it is my understanding they can issue
Airworthiness Directives for Experimental aircraft. Advisory Circular
AC39-7C applies to AD's.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf
/0/ea051001b2ce246e862569b500508099/$FILE/AC39-7C.pdf. Here's an
excerpt from that AC
8. APPLICABILITY OF AD's. Each AD contains an applicability statement
specifying the
product (aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance) to which it
applies. Some aircraft
owners and operators mistakenly assume that AD's do not apply to
aircraft with other than
standard airworthiness certificates, i.e., special airworthiness
certificates in the restricted, limited,
or experimental category. Unless specifically stated, AD's apply to the
make and model set forth
in the applicability statement regardless of the classification or
category of the airworthiness
certificate issued for the aircraft. Type certificate and airworthiness
certification information are
used to identify the product affected. Limitations may be placed on
applicability by specifying
the serial number or number series to which the AD is applicable. When
there is no reference to
serial numbers, all serial numbers are affected. The following are
examples of AD applicability
statements:
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Lannon
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial use?
Patrick;
Could not agree with you more. This needs to be stopped - if necessary
by reference to the FAA.
These are non certificated aircraft. If an accident should occur, unlike
the T34, T6 etc., there can not be an AWD to correct a problem.
The action would likely be total and permanent grounding in both the US
and Canada.
Whoever is doing this is totally irresponsible.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Scofield
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 4:32 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Commercial use?
Gents,
I received this link to incredible-adventures.com:
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/pdf/yak.pdf from Gary Gabbard,
He expressed a concern and I agree. This site advertised a commercial
air -combat operation. While I admire their enterprise, we know where
this kind of activity got the T-34 community.
Personally, I am concerned that someone will get hurt with aggressive
'non-recreational' use of our fine aircraft and bring FAA action against
us all. I am not sure who is planning these activities, but someone
should inform this entity that commercial air combat ops for hire is not
an approved use of the aircraft. Even claiming that it is a filming
activity is not credible when one is essentially selling air-combat hops
and filming them.
This kind of flying belongs in the proficiency realm, not the
commercial. All of the above is simply my opinion. Am I wrong here?
Patrick Scofield
CJ-6P Alien Invasion
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Commercial use? |
William,
The question is what would happen to our Yak 52 community if someone
pulls the wings off the airplane during a commercial operation and kills
a couple of people because they were flying simulated air combat in a
commercial operation? This is exactly what happened with the T-34's.
They took paying customers, unqualified civilians and non-owners and
gave them the opportunity to be a "fighter pilot for a day". Replace
T-34's with Yak 52's and the answer is obvious. Remember metal has
memory.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: William Halverson
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial use?
Wrong? How can reasoned opinions ever be wrong?
I've seen an outfit that put lasers into SM-260s flying out of LVR
... they have 1v1 dogfights on a routine basis ... 'tag, you're dead' I
suppose. It's joy riding, more than anything else ... regardless of the
PR pieces say.
If the waivers/releases are in place, and its over unpopulated areas,
why would a crash affect the rest of us? Yes, it would be a shame to
lose the a/c of course ... but if the a/c are properly maintained ...
pilot error would be the NTSB verdict and all that would happen is
insurance rates would go up.
I hope ...
Didn't the T-34 group have material fatigue going against them? Did
they push their a/c beyond the envelope?
William
Just a YAK55 guy
At 08:39 PM 3/6/2010, Eric Wobschall wrote:
On the other hand, Skip Holm.
On Mar 6, 2010, at 8:23 PM, John Fischer wrote:
Patrick,
I belive if you check the company out further, you will find the
owner to be Dave Riggs.
Many of you will recall Dave Riggs as the pilot who had his
licence revoked for buzzing the Santa Monica Pier.
http://www.mach1aviation.com/bio-dr.htm
Laterrrrr
John Fischer
At 04:32 PM 3/6/2010, you wrote:
Gents,
I received this link to incredible-adventures.com:
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/pdf/yak.pdf from Gary Gabbard,
He expressed a concern and I agree. This site advertised a commercial
air -combat operation. While I admire their enterprise, we know where
this kind of activity got the T-34 community.
Personally, I am concerned that someone will get hurt with
aggressive 'non-recreational' use of our fine aircraft and bring FAA
action against us all. I am not sure who is planning these activities,
but someone should inform this entity that commercial air combat ops for
hire is not an approved use of the aircraft. Even claiming that it is a
filming activity is not credible when one is essentially selling
air-combat hops and filming them.
This kind of flying belongs in the proficiency realm, not the
commercial. All of the above is simply my opinion. Am I wrong here?
Patrick Scofield
CJ-6P Alien Invasion
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Commercial Use |
Gang,
Just thought I'd jump in here. As an active and heavily invested member of the
warbird community, and one of the first people contacted by the FAA when people
do stupid things in our community (like the L-39 buzzing of the SaMo pier),
I am intimately aware of the ever increasing scrutiny our community is under
by the FAA. I fully understand the implications and repercussions of not complying
with the regulations...it goes beyond individual repercussions and affects
the entire community.
Rest assured that Worldwide Warbirds, Inc. and/or myself are not involved in any
fashion with the commercial entity selling ACM rides on the internet. We are
doing our best to try to improve the community, not hurt it. Unfortunately
pictures are easy to steal on the internet, but I've contacted the company and
requested to have the ones of my plane removed. The other ones look like DVT
CJ's.
I appreciate the "watchdog" efforts in this regard. We need to stick together
and protect our precious flying privileges!
Two more points. One is that you can get a waiver, known as Letter of Deviation
Authority for flight instruction in EE aircraft...it is not an unlimited "ticket"
do to anything commercial. Second is while Skip Holm is one of the best,
if not the best pilot I've ever flown with, a quick check of the record would
suggest he does not always hold the FAR's of much import, if you get my drift.
Regards,
Barry
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
William,
As Dennis said (and you) metal has memory and therefore has fatigue. Many of
our YAK 52's came here with right at 1000 hours on them. That is when the
Russians retired them from their inventory and we assume they are safe
because of the way we fly them. They probably are but who has done Eddy
Current and Xray analysis of their spars? I know of one person that has done
that on their 50.
Bottom line is, these planes are tough as nails as long as we fly them they
way we do. Going out and pulling 6-7 G's or greater doing ACM daily is
pushing you to a higher level of risk that the spar and attachment bolts
just may not be what you thought you had before that wing folds over your
head and you kiss your ass goodbye.
The Sukes have a formula for calculating airframe life based on G exposure
above 6 or 6.5, I forgot which. Even titanium gives up the ghost sometimes.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial use?
William,
The question is what would happen to our Yak 52 community if someone pulls
the wings off the airplane during a commercial operation and kills a couple
of people because they were flying simulated air combat in a commercial
operation? This is exactly what happened with the T-34's. They took paying
customers, unqualified civilians and non-owners and gave them the
opportunity to be a "fighter pilot for a day". Replace T-34's with Yak 52's
and the answer is obvious. Remember metal has memory.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: William Halverson <mailto:william@netpros.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial use?
Wrong? How can reasoned opinions ever be wrong?
I've seen an outfit that put lasers into SM-260s flying out of LVR ... they
have 1v1 dogfights on a routine basis ... 'tag, you're dead' I suppose.
It's joy riding, more than anything else ... regardless of the PR pieces
say.
If the waivers/releases are in place, and its over unpopulated areas, why
would a crash affect the rest of us? Yes, it would be a shame to lose the
a/c of course ... but if the a/c are properly maintained ... pilot error
would be the NTSB verdict and all that would happen is insurance rates would
go up.
I hope ...
Didn't the T-34 group have material fatigue going against them? Did they
push their a/c beyond the envelope?
William
Just a YAK55 guy
At 08:39 PM 3/6/2010, Eric Wobschall wrote:
On the other hand, Skip Holm.
On Mar 6, 2010, at 8:23 PM, John Fischer wrote:
Patrick,
I belive if you check the company out further, you will find the owner to
be Dave Riggs.
Many of you will recall Dave Riggs as the pilot who had his licence revoked
for buzzing the Santa Monica Pier.
http://www.mach1aviation.com/bio-dr.htm
Laterrrrr
John Fischer
At 04:32 PM 3/6/2010, you wrote:
Gents,
I received this link to incredible-adventures.com:
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/pdf/yak.pdf from Gary Gabbard, He
expressed a concern and I agree. This site advertised a commercial air
-combat operation. While I admire their enterprise, we know where this kind
of activity got the T-34 community.
Personally, I am concerned that someone will get hurt with aggressive
'non-recreational' use of our fine aircraft and bring FAA action against us
all. I am not sure who is planning these activities, but someone should
inform this entity that commercial air combat ops for hire is not an
approved use of the aircraft. Even claiming that it is a filming activity
is not credible when one is essentially selling air-combat hops and filming
them.
This kind of flying belongs in the proficiency realm, not the commercial.
All of the above is simply my opinion. Am I wrong here?
Patrick Scofield
CJ-6P Alien Invasion
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Commercial use? |
Thanks Dennis;
I stand corrected. They are able to issue an AD but that may just be used as a
mechanism for permanent grounding.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: A. Dennis Savarese
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial use?
Walt,
From my discussions with the FAA it is my understanding they can issue Airworthiness Directives for Experimental aircraft. Advisory Circular AC39-7C applies to AD's. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/ea051001b2ce246e862569b500508099/$FILE/AC39-7C.pdf. Here's an excerpt from that AC
8. APPLICABILITY OF AD's. Each AD contains an applicability statement specifying
the
product (aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance) to which it applies.
Some aircraft
owners and operators mistakenly assume that AD's do not apply to aircraft with
other than
standard airworthiness certificates, i.e., special airworthiness certificates
in the restricted, limited,
or experimental category. Unless specifically stated, AD's apply to the make
and model set forth
in the applicability statement regardless of the classification or category of
the airworthiness
certificate issued for the aircraft. Type certificate and airworthiness certification
information are
used to identify the product affected. Limitations may be placed on applicability
by specifying
the serial number or number series to which the AD is applicable. When there
is no reference to
serial numbers, all serial numbers are affected. The following are examples of
AD applicability
statements:
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Lannon
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial use?
Patrick;
Could not agree with you more. This needs to be stopped - if necessary by reference
to the FAA.
These are non certificated aircraft. If an accident should occur, unlike the
T34, T6 etc., there can not be an AWD to correct a problem.
The action would likely be total and permanent grounding in both the US and Canada.
Whoever is doing this is totally irresponsible.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Scofield
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 4:32 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Commercial use?
Gents,
I received this link to incredible-adventures.com: http://www.incredible-adventures.com/pdf/yak.pdf from Gary Gabbard, He expressed a concern and I agree. This site advertised a commercial air -combat operation. While I admire their enterprise, we know where this kind of activity got the T-34 community.
Personally, I am concerned that someone will get hurt with aggressive 'non-recreational'
use of our fine aircraft and bring FAA action against us all. I am
not sure who is planning these activities, but someone should inform this entity
that commercial air combat ops for hire is not an approved use of the aircraft.
Even claiming that it is a filming activity is not credible when one is
essentially selling air-combat hops and filming them.
This kind of flying belongs in the proficiency realm, not the commercial. All
of the above is simply my opinion. Am I wrong here?
Patrick Scofield
CJ-6P Alien Invasion
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Commercial use? |
Concerning ACM with inexperienced passengers - pilots, Let me give one of m
y experiences with a passenger in my Yak 52. Back seater was a flight instr
uctor with many years and hours of flight training a lot in Aronca 7ac
=99s 10 years my senior at least with some acro training. He asked for a
ride in the Yak and I figured with his years as an instructor he might tea
ch me something (I wasn=99t disappointed he did) after flying around
with him piloting from the back seat getting used to the airplane he ask ab
out acrobatics, at the time I was proficient to the IAC Sportsman level =C2
-finally some fun =C2-I asked him to follow me through on a loop entry
speed 300 k easy pull to about 4.5 g relax over the top little rudder to ke
ep it straight start pulling again at 45 down relax at level OK you try one
300k down and 7.5g snap roll! Cheack to see that wings are still there.=0A
I guess what I=99m trying to say is No matter the experience of the p
ilot - passenger things happen fast, will the safety pilot always be able t
o stop and correct someone trying to be something they are not? NO they wil
l not! Eventually the wings will come OFF!=0ACan a CJ do a 7.5g snap roll?B
ill Wade=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Patrick Sco
field <patrick@designworx.com>=0ATo: yak-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Sat, Ma
rch 6, 2010 7:32:23 PM=0ASubject: Yak-List: Commercial use?=0A=0A=0AGents,
=0A=0AI received this link to incredible-adventures.com: =C2- =C2-http:
//www.incredible-adventures.com/pdf/yak.pdf=C2-=C2-=C2-from Gary Gabb
ard, =C2-He expressed a concern and I agree. =C2-This site advertised a
commercial air -combat operation. =C2-While I admire their enterprise, w
e know where this kind of activity got the T-34 community. =C2-=C2-=0A
=0APersonally, I am concerned that someone will get hurt with aggressive 'n
on-recreational' use of our fine aircraft and bring FAA action against us a
ll. =C2-I am not sure who is planning these activities, but someone shoul
d inform this entity that commercial air combat ops for hire is not an appr
oved use of the aircraft. =C2-Even claiming that it is a filming activity
is not credible when one is essentially selling air-combat hops and filmin
g them.=0A=0AThis kind of flying belongs in the proficiency realm, not the
commercial. =C2-All of the above is simply my opinion. =C2-Am I wrong h
==========0A=0A=0A
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Wow!!! This is great I just scheduled a ACM flight. I have always wanted to
do this. Can you guys help me out. Is it safe do with a CJ and not and
real Yak?
I am looking forward to this...
K
Victory Aero LLC
2502 John Montgomery Dr.
San Jose, CA 95148
408-836-5122
www.balancemyprop.com
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Scofield
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 4:32 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Commercial use?
Gents,
I received this link to incredible-adventures.com:
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/pdf/yak.pdf from Gary Gabbard, He
expressed a concern and I agree. This site advertised a commercial air
-combat operation. While I admire their enterprise, we know where this kind
of activity got the T-34 community.
Personally, I am concerned that someone will get hurt with aggressive
'non-recreational' use of our fine aircraft and bring FAA action against us
all. I am not sure who is planning these activities, but someone should
inform this entity that commercial air combat ops for hire is not an
approved use of the aircraft. Even claiming that it is a filming activity
is not credible when one is essentially selling air-combat hops and filming
them.
This kind of flying belongs in the proficiency realm, not the commercial.
All of the above is simply my opinion. Am I wrong here?
Patrick Scofield
CJ-6P Alien Invasion
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Commercial use? |
You are 110% correct Walt.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Lannon
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial use?
Thanks Dennis;
I stand corrected. They are able to issue an AD but that may just be
used as a mechanism for permanent grounding.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: A. Dennis Savarese
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial use?
Walt,
From my discussions with the FAA it is my understanding they can
issue Airworthiness Directives for Experimental aircraft. Advisory
Circular AC39-7C applies to AD's.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf
/0/ea051001b2ce246e862569b500508099/$FILE/AC39-7C.pdf. Here's an
excerpt from that AC
8. APPLICABILITY OF AD's. Each AD contains an applicability
statement specifying the
product (aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance) to
which it applies. Some aircraft
owners and operators mistakenly assume that AD's do not apply to
aircraft with other than
standard airworthiness certificates, i.e., special airworthiness
certificates in the restricted, limited,
or experimental category. Unless specifically stated, AD's apply to
the make and model set forth
in the applicability statement regardless of the classification or
category of the airworthiness
certificate issued for the aircraft. Type certificate and
airworthiness certification information are
used to identify the product affected. Limitations may be placed on
applicability by specifying
the serial number or number series to which the AD is applicable.
When there is no reference to
serial numbers, all serial numbers are affected. The following are
examples of AD applicability
statements:
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Lannon
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Commercial use?
Patrick;
Could not agree with you more. This needs to be stopped - if
necessary by reference to the FAA.
These are non certificated aircraft. If an accident should occur,
unlike the T34, T6 etc., there can not be an AWD to correct a problem.
The action would likely be total and permanent grounding in both the
US and Canada.
Whoever is doing this is totally irresponsible.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Scofield
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 4:32 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Commercial use?
Gents,
I received this link to incredible-adventures.com:
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/pdf/yak.pdf from Gary Gabbard,
He expressed a concern and I agree. This site advertised a commercial
air -combat operation. While I admire their enterprise, we know where
this kind of activity got the T-34 community.
Personally, I am concerned that someone will get hurt with
aggressive 'non-recreational' use of our fine aircraft and bring FAA
action against us all. I am not sure who is planning these activities,
but someone should inform this entity that commercial air combat ops for
hire is not an approved use of the aircraft. Even claiming that it is a
filming activity is not credible when one is essentially selling
air-combat hops and filming them.
This kind of flying belongs in the proficiency realm, not the
commercial. All of the above is simply my opinion. Am I wrong here?
Patrick Scofield
CJ-6P Alien Invasion
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Commercial use? |
OK makes sense now ... thank you!
+-----Original Message-----
+From: Roger Kemp M.D. [mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com]
+Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2010 08:32 AM
+To: yak-list@matronics.com
+Subject: RE: Yak-List: Commercial use?
+
+William,
+
+As Dennis said (and you) metal has memory and therefore has fatigue. Many of
+our YAK 52's came here with right at 1000 hours on them. That is when the
+Russians retired them from their inventory and we assume they are safe
+because of the way we fly them. They probably are but who has done Eddy
+Current and Xray analysis of their spars? I know of one person that has done
+that on their 50.
+
+Bottom line is, these planes are tough as nails as long as we fly them they
+way we do. Going out and pulling 6-7 G's or greater doing ACM daily is
+pushing you to a higher level of risk that the spar and attachment bolts
+just may not be what you thought you had before that wing folds over your
+head and you kiss your ass goodbye.
+
+The Sukes have a formula for calculating airframe life based on G exposure
+above 6 or 6.5, I forgot which. Even titanium gives up the ghost sometimes.
+
+Doc
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Commercial use? |
Every day of the year pilots are conducting Airshows FOR HIRE in
experimental airplanes (including Yaks and Nanchangs).
Several times each and every year our friends kill themselves doing this
commercial activity.
Nobody ever bats an eye.
Nobody ever says: Hey, that airshow activity is dangerous and kills people -
should we be doing that?
Why is that? I have always wondered.
In the last year we (Yaks / CJS) have lost several of our friends to
formation and aerobatic activity.
Flying is risky. There were ten (10) fatalities in my business last year (2
takeoff, 2 formation, 1 acro, 5 weather).
2 more fatalities already this year (2 acro)
I think it is valuable to apply the same passion for friends and aircraft
regardless of the activity being conducted.
TJ
---------------------------
Thomas Johnson, Airpower Insurance, LLC
36 West Ocotillo Road, Phoenix, AZ 85013-1235
Tel: 602-628-2701 or Toll Free: 866-475-9199
E: tomjohnson@cox.net or Fax: 623-321-5843
Free Quote: <http://www.airpowerinsurance.com/> www.airpowerinsurance.com
* Privacy <http://www.airpowerinsurance.com/apower_privacy.pdf>
Information
** NO insurance can be started or changed by email until confirmed in
writing.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Commercial use? |
That ad for "Incredible Adventures" has been around for years...
The creation date of that ad goes back to 2007.
Dave Riggs is indeed behind all of that.
Dave Riggs is a "household name" in the insurance business (black-balled).
This is an important discussion, however with respect to Incredible
Adventures - its nothing new.
The aircraft pictured in the ad should not be confused with the ad.
Tj
---------------------------
Thomas Johnson, Airpower Insurance, LLC
36 West Ocotillo Road, Phoenix, AZ 85013-1235
Tel: 602-628-2701 or Toll Free: 866-475-9199
E: tomjohnson@cox.net or Fax: 623-321-5843
Free Quote: <http://www.airpowerinsurance.com/> www.airpowerinsurance.com
* Privacy <http://www.airpowerinsurance.com/apower_privacy.pdf>
Information
** NO insurance can be started or changed by email until confirmed in
writing.
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FW: Aircombat CJ-6A's GRRRRR |
Well if this poster / advertisement is supposedly over one year old and of
no potential adverse effect on the red star community as it
appears that some responders on this list seem to say. I disagree because
some one is paying there phone bill the numbers are good
and the canned message is soliciting customers for the flights.
Tom Elliott
CJ-6A NX63727
702-595-2680
_____
From: ggg6@att.net [mailto:ggg6@att.net]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 11:48 PM
Subject: Aircombat CJ-6A's GRRRRR
I suppose now these IDIOTS will start tearing the CJ's apart oin the air..
Then the FAA will want to ground all of them because they are unsafe.. Wish
I knew someway to stop this.. Don't know how they are doing it as it is not
suppose to be operated commerically, being an expiremental exhabition
catagory acft...
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/pdf/yak.pdf
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Commercial use? |
Tom, In the case being talked about they are going to be taking / charging
people from the general population, adults and children ( note lawyers
love wrongful death suites involving children) for rides/aerobatics/combat
in a hazardous environment. All of the activity you refer to involves
owners, crew members. At what official Airshow ( wavered air space) have you
seen passengers during a performance?
Tom Elliott
CJ-6A NX63727
702-595-2680
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Johnson
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 11:48 AM
Subject: Yak-List: RE: Commercial use?
Every day of the year pilots are conducting Airshows FOR HIRE in
experimental airplanes (including Yaks and Nanchangs).
Several times each and every year our friends kill themselves doing this
commercial activity.
Nobody ever bats an eye.
Nobody ever says: Hey, that airshow activity is dangerous and kills people -
should we be doing that?
Why is that? I have always wondered.
In the last year we (Yaks / CJS) have lost several of our friends to
formation and aerobatic activity.
Flying is risky. There were ten (10) fatalities in my business last year (2
takeoff, 2 formation, 1 acro, 5 weather).
2 more fatalities already this year (2 acro)
I think it is valuable to apply the same passion for friends and aircraft
regardless of the activity being conducted.
TJ
---------------------------
Thomas Johnson, Airpower Insurance, LLC
36 West Ocotillo Road, Phoenix, AZ 85013-1235
Tel: 602-628-2701 or Toll Free: 866-475-9199
E: tomjohnson@cox.net or Fax: 623-321-5843
Free Quote: <http://www.airpowerinsurance.com/> www.airpowerinsurance.com
* Privacy <http://www.airpowerinsurance.com/apower_privacy.pdf>
Information
** NO insurance can be started or changed by email until confirmed in
writing.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Commercial use? |
Damned there are to many Tom's in this thread.I'm getting confused! :^))
Anyway, both are correct. There are no pax during shows in waivered
airspace.only safety observers.
As for 10 fatalities last year, why have the results of the AIB's not been
reported. Maybe with a little more knowledge of the circumstances (read
series of events) that resulted in the fatalities we as a community just
might learn something that will fit in our clue bags. This is not an attempt
to be judgmental. It is just an attempt to learn from the mistakes of others
before I go out and do something stupid like flying ACM with a bunch of
unsuspecting dumb civilians that just want to fighter pilots for a day.
Money will get you anything.including dead.
Why do I say that, I, along with some of my fellow Alabama Yakkers, just
lost a friend and college yesterday to what apparently sounds like
controlled flight into terrain. He and his wife were killed while flying
formation off the coast of Destin, Fl. I strongly suspect spatial
disorientation as the cause. The day was a clear blue sky and a relatively
calm gulf from what friends told me. GLOC could be another cause but we will
probably never know for sure.
Evan was a very accomplished pilot and was a proud owner of a P-51 along
with a T-6.
Just never know.
Doc
<http://www.waltonsun.com/news/destin-4398-guard-planes.html> BREAKING
NEWS: T-6 FLYER CRASHES INTO THE GULF NEAR TOPSAIL | destin, g
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Elliott
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 2:41 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: RE: Commercial use?
Tom, In the case being talked about they are going to be taking / charging
people from the general population, adults and children ( note lawyers
love wrongful death suites involving children) for rides/aerobatics/combat
in a hazardous environment. All of the activity you refer to involves
owners, crew members. At what official Airshow ( wavered air space) have you
seen passengers during a performance?
Tom Elliott
CJ-6A NX63727
702-595-2680
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom Johnson
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 11:48 AM
Subject: Yak-List: RE: Commercial use?
Every day of the year pilots are conducting Airshows FOR HIRE in
experimental airplanes (including Yaks and Nanchangs).
Several times each and every year our friends kill themselves doing this
commercial activity.
Nobody ever bats an eye.
Nobody ever says: Hey, that airshow activity is dangerous and kills people -
should we be doing that?
Why is that? I have always wondered.
In the last year we (Yaks / CJS) have lost several of our friends to
formation and aerobatic activity.
Flying is risky. There were ten (10) fatalities in my business last year (2
takeoff, 2 formation, 1 acro, 5 weather).
2 more fatalities already this year (2 acro)
I think it is valuable to apply the same passion for friends and aircraft
regardless of the activity being conducted.
TJ
---------------------------
Thomas Johnson, Airpower Insurance, LLC
36 West Ocotillo Road, Phoenix, AZ 85013-1235
Tel: 602-628-2701 or Toll Free: 866-475-9199
E: tomjohnson@cox.net or Fax: 623-321-5843
Free Quote: <http://www.airpowerinsurance.com/> www.airpowerinsurance.com
* Privacy <http://www.airpowerinsurance.com/apower_privacy.pdf>
Information
** NO insurance can be started or changed by email until confirmed in
writing.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|